Law Commons^™

Public Accommodations Originalism’S Inability To Solve The Problems Of Online Content Moderation, Vincent A. Marrazzo

St. Mary's Law Journal

In response to online platforms’ increasing ability to moderate content in what often seems to be an arbitrary way, Justice Clarence Thomas recently suggested that platforms should be regulated as public accommodations such that the government could prevent platforms from banning users or removing posts from their sites. Shortly thereafter, Florida passed the Transparency in Technology Act, which purported to regulate online platforms as public accommodations and restricted their ability to ban users, tailor content through algorithmic decision-making, and engage in their own speech. Texas followed suit by passing a similar law, and Arizona debated a bill purporting to regulate …

Towards A Dramaturgical Theory Of Constitutional Interpretation, Jessica Rizzo

Seattle University Law Review

Like legal texts, dramatic texts have a public function and public responsibilities not shared by texts written to be appreciated in solitude. For this reason, the interpretation of dramatic texts offers a variety of useful templates for the interpretation of legal texts. In this Article, I elaborate on Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson’s neglected account of law as performance. I begin with Balkin and Levinson’s observation that both legal and dramatic interpreters are charged with persuading audiences that their readings of texts are “authoritative,” analyzing the relationship between legal and theatrical authority and tradition. I then offer my own theory …

No, The Firing Squad Is Not Better Than Lethal Injection: A Response To Stephanie Moran’S A Modest Proposal, Michael Conklin

Seattle University Law Review

In the article A Modest Proposal: The Federal Government Should Use Firing Squads to Execute Federal Death Row Inmates, Stephanie Moran argues that the firing squad is the only execution method that meets the requirements of the Eighth Amendment. In order to make her case, Moran unjustifiably overstates the negative aspects of lethal injection while understating the negative aspects of firing squads. The entire piece is predicated upon assumptions that are not only unsupported by the evidence but often directly refuted by the evidence. This Essay critically analyzes Moran’s claims regarding the alleged advantages of the firing squad over …

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’S Premier Defender Of The Fourth Amendment, David L. Hudson Jr.

Seattle University Law Review

This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values.

Leviathan Goes To Washington: How To Assert The Separation Of Powers In Defense Of Future Generations

Florida A & M University Law Review

The separation of powers was originally drawn from the common law of England, vindicated during the American Revolution as a fundamental bulwark against tyranny, and constitutionalized in the first three articles of the U.S. Constitution. It was adopted as an assurance that the present generation would not assert dead-hand control over the future of American society for mere efficiency, vanity, or greed. The separation of powers, therefore, exists to empower future generations to contend for their rights of life, liberty, and property. Both the long history of the separation of powers and the recent, controversial practices of multinational government contractors …

Black Women And Girls And The Twenty-Sixth Amendment: Constitutional Connections, Activist Intersections, And The First Wave Youth Suffrage Movement, Mae C. Quinn

Seattle University Law Review

On this 100th anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment—and on the cusp of the fiftieth anniversary of the Twenty-sixth Amendment—this article seeks to expand the voting rights canon. It complicates our understanding of voting rights history in the United States, adding layers to the history of federal constitutional enfranchisement and encouraging a more intersectional telling of our suffrage story in the days ahead.

Thus, this work not only seeks to acknowledge the Twenty-sixth Amendment as important constitutional content, as was the goal of the article I wrote with my law student colleagues for a conference held at the University of Akron …

States As Civil Rights Actors: Assessing Advocacy Mechanisms Within A State’S Legislative, Executive, And Judicial Branches, Jennifer Safstrom

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Reframing The Affirmative Action Debate To Move Beyond Arguments For Diversity And Interest Convergence, Adrian Jamal Mclain, Steven L. Nelson

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comprehensive Rethinking Of Equal Protection Post-Obergefelll: A Plea For Substantivity In Law, Shannon Gilreath

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Panel 6: The Median Justice

Georgia State University Law Review

Moderator: Eric Segall

Panelists: Jonathan Adler, Lee Epstein, and Sasha Volokh

The Opioid Crisis: The States' And Local Governments' Response To Bigpharma's Deception And Why The Supremacy Clause May Provide A Cloak For Opioid Manufacturers To Hide Behind, Tracie Childers

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Gun To Whose Head? Federalism, Localism, And The Spending Clause, Daniel S. Cohen

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s executive order rescinding federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions” has brought a critical, but overlooked, question of constitutional law to the forefront of the political debate: how does the Spending Clause apply to local governments? The purpose of the Spending Clause is to empower the federal government to bargain with the states to enact policies it cannot enact itself. This power, however, is constrained within the confines of federalism. The Supreme Court has sought to restrict the Spending Clause by crafting the Dole-NFIB framework, a test to determine whether a federal grant has compromised federalism. At its …

Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …

A Corporation Has No Soul, And Doesn't Go To Church: Relating The Doctrine Or Piercing The Veil To Burwell V. Hobby Lobby, Carol Goforth

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Roberts Court And Penumbral Federalism, Edward Cantu

Catholic University Law Review

For several decades the Court has invoked “state dignity” to animate federalism reasoning in isolated doctrinal contexts. Recent Roberts Court decisions suggest that a focus on state dignity, prestige, status, and similar ethereal concepts—which derive from a “penumbral” reading of the Tenth Amendment—represent the budding of a different doctrinal approach to federalism generally. This article terms this new approach “penumbral federalism,” an approach less concerned with delineating state from federal regulatory turf, and more concerned with maintaining the states as viable competitors for the respect and loyalty of the citizenry.

After fleshing out what “penumbral federalism” is and its …

Separation Of Powers Doctrine On The Modern Supreme Court And Four Doctrinal Approaches To Judicial Decision-Making, R. Randall Kelso

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

New Paths For The Court: Protections Afforded Juveniles Under Miranda; Effective Assistance Of Counsel; And Habeas Corpus Decisions Of The Supreme Court’S 2010/2011 Term, Richard Klein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Forensic Constitutional Interpretation, Brian F. Havel

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward A Pragmatic Model Of Judicial Decisionmaking: Why Tort Law Provides A Better Framework Than Constitutional Law For Deciding The Issue Of Medical Futility, Brent D. Lloyd

Seattle University Law Review

Recognizing that courts will eventually have to confront the issue of medical futility, this Comment argues that there is no principled basis for omitting these difficult questions from a legal analysis of the issue and that courts should therefore decide the issue in a manner that honestly confronts them. Specifically, the argument advanced here is that courts confronted with cases of medical futility should decide the issue under principles of tort law, rather than under principles of constitutional law. The crux of this argument is that tort principles provide an open-ended analytical framework conducive to considering troublesome questions like those …

Nude Dancing Conveying A Message Or Eroticism And Sexuality Is Protected By The First Amendment But Can Be Limited Under State Police Powers Provided The Government Establishes A Substantial, Content-Neutral Purpose., Fred S. Wilson

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., the Supreme Court held the First Amendment protects nude dancing as conveying an expressive message, but state police powers may limit protection if the government establishes a substantial, content-neutral purpose. It is a principal of constitutional law where an actor intends to convey a message by expressive conduct, the First Amendment protection extends to that expression. Traditionally, time, place, and manner regulations restricting expressive conduct based on either the subject-matter of the message or the viewpoint of the actor receive content-based classification. However, content-based regulation of expressive conduct is constitutional only when narrowly drawn …

A Trial Court's Refusal To Question Prospective Jurors About The Specific Contents Of Pretrial Publicity Which They Had Read Or Heard Did Not Violate A Defendant's Sixth Amendment Right To An Impartial Jury, Or Fourteenth Amendment Right To Due Process., Karen A. Cusenbary

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Mu'Min v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held a defendant has no right to ask jurors about the potential influence of prejudicial pretrial publicity. A defendant may ask only if the jurors can remain impartial. The Court mandates that overturning a trial court’s jury selection is allowable only if manifest error renders the trial fundamentally unfair. The Court did not find that the case involved sufficient public passion to necessitate a more extensive jury examination by the trial court to include inquiries involving the effect of pretrial publicity. The ruling in Mu'Min leaves too much discretion to the …

Legal Idealism And Constitutional Law, James A. Gardner

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Civil Rights Legislation And The Constitution, Frank K. Sloan

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.